Her candidness is admirable. So is the recent candidness demonstrated by her husband.

Maybe W's unappealingness wasn't the fault of his personality or values... perhaps it was instead due to his contorting himself into a lying, conniving political creature so that he could secure and maintain his office.

That's still failure, but not as serious a failure as it would be if the negative traits ran deeper.

She's a really pleasant person and has a sense of humor. I can see saying "I blame Bush" when something silly happens.

In the end, Barack has to spend this rest of his life with basically a subhuman monster (someone who isn't proud of anything anyone in this amazing nation has done except to nominate and elect her husband... someone who enjoyed Bill Ayers and Rev Wright... basically a Tim McVeigh type only scowling more).

George W gets to spend his life with a much smarter and nicer wife. And he'll have a much better legacy. I honestly am not all that concerned with W, but a lot of his decisions, including his spouse choice, just look better in hindsight.

I admit that I blame Bush for Obama's election. If Bush had governed along conservative principles instead of "invite the world, invade the world, and in hock to the world" [credit: Steve Sailer] we never would have had an Obama in the White House.

GMay: how so? Here's your chance to prove me wrong: find someone now associated with the teaparties complaining about any of the three issues I discussed. Sailer discussed the first, maybe one or two non-teaparty bloggers might have said something about the second, and no one to my knowledge has said a peep about the third despite how shocking it is.

But, you go ahead GMay. You find me someone in the teaparties publicly condemning Bush for any of those three.

Since GMay won't be able to do that, make a mental note not to trust GMay.

As for "DeadJulius", it appears to be the latest version of one of Althouse's little pests, perhaps even "Seven Machos". Its site won't load and its WHOIS is hidden but it's hosted by linode.com or one of their resellers. Maybe I should do some more research. In any case, like "Seven Machos" its patriotism and loyalty to its fellow citizens is highly questionable.

edutcher: I might have misread Julius, so maybe I should re-read what it wrote. However, regarding your comment if Althouse and her comments section represents America then I'm moving to Lithuania. For months, Althouse has been infested with 'partier types, and in any case those who discuss politics online are in some ways like those who argue over Kirk v. Picard.

bagoh20: I'm sorry this is difficult for you to understand, but the 'partiers didn't just emerge full grown from a shell. For an easy-to-understand example, a 'partier who's now 40 was in their 30s during the Bush admin and, barring a physical disability, was able to speak out against Bush's depredations. Yet, they did not. Most of those who are now 'partiers were among the 25% or so who solidly supported Bush no matter how un- and anti-American his plans.

Oh no. I accept your analysis. I'm sure someone of your vast abilities and resources would have no problem researching each and every Tea Partier and would know how they felt about every issue over all those years. I know I don't have any ability to dispute such a thing. I'm just a Tea Partier. What would I know about us or anything else compared to the super mind of a blogger? You have to pass tests and stuff to get that job.

Since Ritmo has graciously pointed out that our social group think is the origin of human shame, we should probably make Ritmo prove that. For a week, no matter how well he writes and brings up interesting points of view, let's try to point out something deserving of shame from him. We can pretend that we are sophisticated NYT writers investigating Sarah Palin. For example, have you heard that Ritmo lets his epidermis show in public every day. Oh never mind, I enjoy Ritmo's comments.

It's good that GMay revealed its true self. For those who are lurking, that's how 'partiers operate. They can't debate or make a logical argument: all they can do is act like little children.

At this point in time it might be worth recalling that I've been around for a while; I first started the titular blog in August 2002 (several years after having another site). I'm quite familiar with the 'partiers in their past incarnations: hardcore Bush supporters and another set of folks in the RonPaul movement. The 'partiers didn't just come from nowhere, and where they came from isn't a good place.

What was the lie exactly, again? I never do tire of hearing that myth repeated ad nauseam in all its rich detail, a vital premise from which so much is derived and without which so much that is fundamental dissolves to mush and which can be maintained only by blithely ignoring mountains to the contrary. I'm endlessly fascinated how that works, please, do go on.

As for "DeadJulius", it appears to be the latest version of one of Althouse's little pests, perhaps even "Seven Machos"...In any case, like "Seven Machos" its patriotism and loyalty to its fellow citizens is highly questionable.

Recently got back from a half ironman triathlon, people. Then, today I got food poisoning. Tomorrow, the Good Lord willing, it's off to some world-class whitewater.

I must admit, even in my weakened condition when I could take a nasty fall down the stairs and subject myself to further school absences, that I love knowing that I am gnawing at the mind of raving crazies like Wacko even in my silence.

As for the libelous claim above, I'm not funded by anyone else. I guess I'm going to have to spend my time filing that lawsuit. But, that does show yet again how Althouse's friends in the teaparties operate: they just can't make an argument but have to smear. They really are the lowest of the low.

Whacko swung and missed: "For an easy-to-understand example, a 'partier who's now 40 was in their 30s during the Bush admin and, barring a physical disability, was able to speak out against Bush's depredations. Yet, they did not."

Well, looks like you did give embarrassing yourself another shot. ry I missed this before I responded above.

Why don't you list, say, oh, 5 of the top Tea Party candidates for us? Then, inform us as to their public prominence during the Bush admin. Then, you can give us a breakdown of the Tea party, what their political structure is, their platforms, and their recognized leadership, funding mechanisms, etc.

"Most of those who are now 'partiers were among the 25% or so who solidly supported Bush no matter how un- and anti-American his plans."

Welllll now, do you have a cite for that 25%, or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?

"The 'partiers didn't just come from nowhere, and where they came from isn't a good place."

They came from everywhere. Every corner of the country. Scary huh?

Is there any threat lamer than "I'm gonna sue you"?

Wacko, you really are the worst salesman I have every seen. I know it's the fault of Bush and his Tea Party army, but you can rise above it. Image that you actually want us to read your blog, then try again.

"Maybe W's unappealingness wasn't the fault of his personality or values... perhaps it was instead due to his contorting himself into a lying, conniving political creature so that he could secure and maintain his office."

Humorless leftie is humorless.

"In the end, Barack has to spend this rest of his life with basically a subhuman monster (someone who isn't proud of anything anyone in this amazing nation has done except to nominate and elect her husband..."

Humorless rightie is humorless.

"They should invent a new circle in hell just for Bush."

Humorless pothead* is humorless.

*Since the most important issue in creation for libertarians seems to be the fact that they can't buy marijuana at Walmart I'm going to call them "potheads."

Um... who was the commenter who said "if Althouse and her comments section represents America then I'm moving to Lithuania" a few comments up? Your evil twin? It must have been. Surely a mature debater like "Lonewacko" (a name that truly reassures as to the measured and considered rejoinders that will surely be offered by him) wouldn't stamp his cyber-feet and yell "If you don't stop being mean to me I'm going to take my weed and run away from home!"

Anyway, we don't have access to your internet IP -- how do we know you aren't already in Lithuania, huh? You could be a Lithuanian spy!

Nice, Slow Joe. You really have a knack for vicious and unpardonable phrases.

But Joe, maybe it's Bush's fault that you sound like a racist jerk."

I have a knack? I didn't think I was all that nasty in my general commenting. I made a lot of specific explanations for my low opinion of Michele vs Laura. Laura is eloquent and intelligent. She's obviously far better read and has often shown great self reflection and selflessness.

Michelle is not very intelligent, doesn't show much self reflection, and often condemns her nation. One of my explanations was that she's friends with terrorists. One was that she said she's not proud of this country, except that it nominated her husband.

It's beyond pathetic that you call me racist when I have clearly evaluated the content of her character and not her skin color. You want me to deny being racist and focus on whether or not I'm racist, when my argumentation has no racism in it whatsoever.

Typical deflection from the race baiting democrats.

Sorry, I could give a shit that Michelle is black. It means absolutely nothing. She's extremely privileged and ungrateful for living in a wonderful nation... she actually hates America. I think she compared to Laura Bush extremely poorly. She's inferior. Her race is a concept I don't really even recognize.

Didn't Obama lie when he said he was competent? When he clearly implied that he would be able to handle some mess that a body or water threw at us?

It's true that all the reasons Bush gave for Iraq were false. It's also true that he had ulterior motives that he did not promote (primarily, establishing a beach head in the Middle East, which we now have, against Iran and close to Saudi Arabia and every other grossly anti-freedom state in the region).

But false is not a lie. Nor is having reasons you don't promote.

What's a lie is saying you are competent when clearly, clearly you are not.

GMay: as far as I know I'm the author of that sentence. I mean, I just typed it and all. But it's not a really original thought -- anyone who has read more than three articles on Reason.com will get the idea that a lot of libertarians are obsessed with a certain substance that at least half the people listening to the Doors' "Light My Fire" claim it's about. No the other one -- the one that doesn't start with "s" and end in "x." (FYI I'm part of the very small minority that says the song can be about both sex and lighting up a spliff; it doesn't have to be one or the other.)

Well, he didn't necessarily lie. Delusional people believe their wacky ideas are real. And Obama's been told all his life that he was the special Golden Child who could do anything, so why shouldn't he have the self-regard of an Ottoman pasha?

Machos: yeah, but they still have to make money to buy their drugs and sex sells. Hey, "Light My Fire" was subtle for the Sixties. Remember, Jim Morrison was the Love Generation's Rimbaud, or some shit like that.

I personally believe that Bush wanted to invade Iraq because it was and remains in retrospect a wise idea. He went looking for reasons that would be supported by the population.

Any country in the region would have done -- Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even Israel. Iraq had the fortune and Saddam Hussein had the misfortune of being the one that was most logical given previous events.

It is a very good and useful thing that we have a large military presence in the region.

"It's true that all the reasons Bush gave for Iraq were false. It's also true that he had ulterior motives that he did not promote (primarily, establishing a beach head in the Middle East, which we now have, against Iran and close to Saudi Arabia and every other grossly anti-freedom state in the region)."

I love how the acknowledged true reason is actually one of the false reasons.

It's something any basically informed person would realize, too. BDS isn't easy if you're informed, I guess. Bush probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives by getting rid of Saddam. Hard to swallow, I realize. How many people did Saddam kill with his WMD use, internal executions, and wars with Kuwait and Iran?

Julius -- The thing to recall here that you are not recalling is that Bush -- for whatever reason -- decided to go the United Nations route. Therefore, he had to make an argument that fit preexisting UN resolutions.

As for tricking the public, another thing to remember is that the press seized on few among several arguments. That said, American history is replete with examples of wars fought for different reasons than the political arguments given.

Hey, Japan just bombed our territory, let's invade North Africa. Hey, we need to contain communism all over the world, let's fight invade Vietnam a silly little naval gunfight. Hey, we want to be independent of Britain. Let's wage a war over a perfectly reasonable tax.

It's basically the way of the world and I doubt it will ever change. The United States is actually quite open and honest in this regard, relatively.

Therefore, he had to make an argument that fit preexisting UN resolutions.

He shouldda said "fuck you" to the UN and led America in its own direction. Sooner or later one of our Presidents is going to do that, and Bush missed the opportunity.

That said, American history is replete with examples of wars fought for different reasons than the political arguments given...

True, but times have changed. The public has access to far more information and communication now than in those past times. It doesn't work for the President to communicate his agenda and purpose like this were WW2 or Vietnam; doing so inspires resentment and results in a big swing to the opposition... the next thing you know, Crack's best-buddy Obama is in office!

Julius -- I appreciate the fuck you impulse, believe me. However, the reason Bush went the UN route was to generate as much political cover and actual troop and economic support as possible. This is important in war. Vital, really.

The scary thing is, this is the democrats "secret plan" for this fall campaign. Blame everything bad on Bush. I could have sworn a democratic congress since 2006 and a democratic president elected in 2008 was actually running things. Weird. This is the best they got?Even our risable leftys here are tired of making that excuse.

Yes, and us Libtards who were arguing that were wrong. That's become increasingly clear since the initial take-over of Iraq in 2003.

@Seven Machos:

Back in 2003 it might have seemed somewhat sensible to mobilize the military of other nations and tailor the "American vision" for the Middle East to an international community. But the intervening time has proved that this whole approach accomplishes nothing, not in the modern connected information-filled world.

It alienates the American people, enough of whom resent the fact that the administration is not being completely honest with them, and is thereby using them as tools, that support swings to whatever opposition figure has the best smile and the best sales pitch.

And what happened to the international allies? Some are still with us but their support is tenuous, some left, and others resent the whole joint venture.

All that international-friendliness seems to do is to push problems off into the future so that they become bigger and more difficult to solve.

We ought not to make the same mistake again. Of course, the problem now is that Obama is leading us full-force down the international road, right into clusterfucks like the AGW/Copenhagen thing.

There's a more fundamental question here too: If the American President can choose to lead the world, or lead the American people, but not both, what should he do?

Since Ritmo has graciously pointed out that our social group think is the origin of human shame, we should probably make Ritmo prove that. For a week, no matter how well he writes and brings up interesting points of view, let's try to point out something deserving of shame from him. We can pretend that we are sophisticated NYT writers investigating Sarah Palin. For example, have you heard that Ritmo lets his epidermis show in public every day. Oh never mind, I enjoy Ritmo's comments.

For the record, I'm sure shame serves its purposes in smaller societies, such as hunter gatherers, bands, tribes and villages. In a larger multi-ethnic country of 300 million, not so much. Plus, there's that whole freedom thing that gets in the way of opprobrium alone as a meaningful disincentive. Deal.

Best to try to persuade people through reason why you think they are wrong. Some people have a limited capacity for reason, in which you still should try to use it, just at a level they can understand.

But taking the reason out and just using an empty social gesture in itself is less and less likely to do the trick.

We live in a combative society and everybody's got potential allies* lurking somewhere, and ready to pounce in the defense of every purpose imaginable under the sun.

"How many people did Saddam kill with his WMD use, internal executions, and wars with Kuwait and Iran?"

I've seen estimates of around 4 million during his illustrious career. That does not include the 200,000 children supposedly killed by the sanctions that the left thinks were preferable to war. Still small potatoes compared to most of the despots the left dismisses as unimportant and tolerable in history.

I don't blame Obama for the recession, but I do blame him for making it the Great Recession. I know too many businessmen waiting to invest and grow jobs because they don't trust him or his administration combined with this congress and the Democrats running their state and local governments.Too put it simply. Democrats have made the country scared to take risks with money. That's stagnating and it's not new. It didn't happen overnight but it has reached critical mass. Long slow growth is the best we can expect until significant change in direction is seen. The government doesn't grow the economy. It lives off it. Now it's gonna go on a diet too.

In an effort to humor him, I declare that he or anyone else is welcome to bring up any one of a number of misdeeds on the part of the non-right every week in order to elicit my disapproval, disagreement or agnosticism, if not shame. And this may indeed occur, provided at least two of the righties here can do the same with their side of the aisle, and in reference to a misdeed other than not being sufficiently ideological or politically cunning.

But I guess that last stipulation assures us this will never happen...

And whatever regarding the size of the recession from 2008 onward. The global economy nearly melted entirely over the course of a day in October, and would have had it not been for some quick moves. For Bag to pretend that something that severe could have been bubbled out of just shows the level of delusion under which he's operating...

Keep up the optimism, bag. Goodness knows we need it. Just stop pretending you've got answers. You just stick to running your company and hawking unneeded junk and when America comes back from attending to reality, and demand for more elastic stuff returns, we'll be there.

Yes, Ritmo is right! If you want a better environment for investment, then let's:

(1) Abolish Congress.

(2) Promote federalism by getting the Federal government out of pretty much everything, especially social issues and commercial regulation, and by minimizing its spending.

(3) Install a capitalist dictator (like Steve Jobs!) for a certain, pre-defined period of time (like 10 years) under the mandate of #2 above.

And... voila! You'll end up with the idea atmosphere for investment, a foreign policy that doesn't need to kow-tow to anyone, and a wide range of actually distinctive states so that if you don't like yours you can pack up and move yourself and your business to another one!

Got a better idea? Or do you prefer the invasive and corrupt and expensive one-size-fits-all system that we have now?

Yes, Ritmo is right! If you want a better environment for investment, then let's:

(1) Abolish Congress.

(2) Promote federalism by getting the Federal government out of pretty much everything, especially social issues and commercial regulation, and by minimizing its spending.

(3) Install a capitalist dictator (like Steve Jobs!) for a certain, pre-defined period of time (like 10 years) under the mandate of #2 above, along with the mandate of protecting the country.

And... voila! You'll end up with the ideal atmosphere for investment, a foreign policy that doesn't need to kow-tow to anyone, and a wide range of actually distinctive states so that if you don't like yours you can pack up and move yourself and your business to another one!

Got a better idea? Or do you prefer the invasive and corrupt and expensive one-size-fits-all system that we have now?

As most on the left you are incapable of seeing the detrimental effects of government interference. You ignore the negatives and even consider when they are forced to fix those mistakes or risk disaster as some kind of triumph. That supposed fix is far from done being paid for. The dangerous period is not behind but ahead of us. I'm not optimistic at all.

Over the years I've helped to financially support and build hundreds of families "hawking junk". Those families have done likewise to thousands of others. I don't believe the same thing would be possible starting today and it's almost entirely due to the errors of government regulation.

Wherein Ritmo fails hilariously concerning Israel but nevertheless stumbles on the fundamental truth that we had to overthrow some government in the Middle East and set up camp there, and Iraq was the only one that was politically possible.

1) After he's out of office, Bush (67 years old) and Obama (53 years old) should duke it out in the ring for charity. Hold it in Chicago. The Thrilla from the Southside. Everyone knows Bush will kick the donkey shine out of Barack: "You wanna piece of this, Mother Mouth-off? Can't quit talkin' trash about me, just so you can divert from your sorry ass, worthless, drive-by time in the White Hou-ooose?

Prediction: Bush in 22 seconds. With Zero pre-fight prep.

2)Obama is a failure - immature, incapable of leading, incapableof inspiring, incapable of "bringing us together" (He's no Ronald Reagan, that's for sure). He is a man being told where to go and what to do by his advisors with no "there" actually there. Question - Because Obama is black, are people afraid to say how deeply they are disappointed in him?

DAMN this makes me crazy. If he did it or started it then it is HIS responsibility and if went sour it was of his doing.

Sigh. There it is, again. Leftists like HD are incapable of understanding that presidents are not dictators - primarily because they pine for and expect a president of the left to be dictatorial - and therefore forget that there is a congress and judiciary that have far greater impact on public policy. And just who, HD, controlled the legislature and the judiciary when things started going south?

but he didn't have them when we went to war against him citing that as a reason for doing so.

I know for hdhouse, facts are a terrible thing but you might like to review the text of the Congressional authorization for war with Iraq which spells out in excrutiatingly detail, ALL of the reasons for military intervention, WMDs being just one of them.

We blamed Bush for causing the global warming that caused the hurricane, that caused the levees to explode that caused people to loot and caused the Superdome to become smelly and caused the destruction of the Chocolate City.

Must be nice to be an insane liberal and nest all these blamings into one another like a 6 year old child.

Can we blame Barry for anything if we set the bar this high? Doubtful.

So, if this thread is still active, let me ask again, ‘what weapons did “we” provide Saddam…HD? A man of your intellect should be able to provide SOME evidence to support your assertion….Mirage F-1’s (French), T-72 (Soviet), G-5 (South African), T-59 (PRC), ASTROS II (Brazil), chemical feed stock (Nederland and Germany), plutonium hot cells (Italy), Osirak Reactor (France). Yes I see all the American weapons on the list, and that ignores the APC’s, IFV’,s and OAFV’s in Saddam’s extensive inventory.

@rocketeer...so Bush is responsible for nothing as long as there are others around to blame it on? Try that on your parents when you get in trouble.

@Hoosier...the reasons given to the American people repeatedly by the adminstration centered on the Condi's Mushroom shaped cloud references.... you know that but you are back peddling because you are caught and you can't escape.

So HDHouse the multiple issues listed by the AUMF, 156 or so, really all were WMD's?

You remain all together too easy.

Lonewacko glad you're back, thought you might ahve been run off from here like you were run off from Reason.

What does it take to get Lonewacko to threaten you with a lawsuit, BTW? And Wacko, dood/doodette to win, you need to show damages....and considering your reputation, now, I don't think it could be MORE damaged.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

@Hoosier...the reasons given to the American people repeatedly by the adminstration centered on the Condi's Mushroom shaped cloud references.... you know that but you are back peddling because you are caught and you can't escape.

Guess you did have trouble with the big words. As I said, facts for hdhouse are too difficult to face so he just makes stuff up. You're easier than shooting fish in a coffee can.

Whenever - and I mean WHENEVER- anyone dare speak out about the Democrat's fiscal recklessness, and the Democrat's record high deficit spending, the standard democrat reply is "yeah but... what about the war in Iraq and the prescription drug benefit"

First off, liberals should love Bush for the prescription drug benefit. See, Bush is a lefty in this area. Come on pro-big government nanny-state democrats, you should be praising Bush for this accomplishment! You would if Obama did it.

Behold - the disingenuous left.

Then there's the war:First off, we are still over there even though Obama promised our troops would come home. OUT of control democrat spending (Stimulus, endless bailouts of failed democrat corporate donors, the tax payer funded health care disaster...(which is just a huge tax increase))have resulted in a stagnant economy with business owners scared to death of looming punitive tax rate hikes. So-- no hiring.Never mind the pesky little pink donkey in the room - the democrats have succeeded in pushing our national deficit higher than at any other point in this nations history.More spending than any war.

House: are you asserting the US government supplied Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons used during the Iran Iraq war? Is that what you are saying--you have any support for that assertion? Would be interested in reviewing your evidence.

lonewacko says no "'partiers" objected to Bush's amnesty proposals. Who does he think burned up the telephone and fax lines and got that derailed? It was people like me who are now "'partiers", that's who. We didn't approve of everything President Bush did, but at least he governed and didn't play the blame game. He's wrong on amnesty and we said so at the time.

"bagoh20 said...Over the years I've helped to financially support and build hundreds of families "hawking junk". Those families have done likewise to thousands of others. I don't believe the same thing would be possible starting today and it's almost entirely due to the errors of government regulation."

Saddams's WMD's are tucked away in Northern Syria.They have been there since just before the Iraq invasion. The Russians aided the Iraqi's in moving them out, it was in the news at that time. Thanks to our erstwhile NATO allies who stabbed us in the back by not allowing the 4th ID to invade from Turkey those weapons were not interceded. Had the invasion go originally to plan that would have happened. But thanks to the French and their UN antics and the Russians (and of course, the Turks) stalling for time to expedite the removal to Syria of the WMD's they would have been interceded. Where Bush failed was not having the air force destroy the convoys while in transit. But then again their destruction in transit might have resulted in mass casualties.

Bush never claimed the WMD's were the only reason for the invasion or even the principal reason for it, that is the lefty revisionist version. The next major Arab-Israeli war will bring those WMD's out in to the open either when the Syrians use them or Israel invades Northern Syria and captures them. But no matter its always Bush's fault, just like it's always sunny in Philadelphia.

"This is an original ammunition box for the Hotchkiss Cannon...I keep the hearts of orphan children in it."

Really now this is just silly. 1) The ammunition box would be an heirloom or antique. The orphan blood would RUIN its value. I’m SURE Trooper York would NEVER put hearts in it.2) The box is, no doubt, wooden, and the blood would leak thru.3) Orphan hearts are for the Satanic Rituals, and so need to be fresh. It’s unlikely that Trooper ever cuts the hearts out and just stores them, that would be a waste. The cage holds the orphan children until the right phase of the moon and the Will of the Dark Master calls for their sacrifice.

Macho Man are you saying that you don't blame the 2008 Great Recession on Obama? How do you think that script will play in November? Oh Machos Man.

Well, we aren't in 2008 any more, and the great recession is far worse now.

The problem is that there was a lot of blame to go around in 2008, including Dodd and Franks with Fannie and Freddie, and the bursting of the housing bubble, and then the secondary market for mortgages, plus out of control spending, most recently by the Democratic Congress.

But what is important here, in apportioning blame, is what has happened since 2008. Or, more precisely, since the inauguration of President Obama.

And the amazing thing is that he and the Democrats in Congress have done about all that they can to deepen and lengthen that recession. I think that we can start with TARP, since Obama was in the Senate at the time. But shortly afterwards, they had their almost trillion dollar payoff to constituents (aka, the "stimulus" bill), 8,000 or so earmarks in a spending bill, using TARP money to buy out UAW pension plans, screwing up bankruptcy laws for the same, raised taxes, raised federal salaries, raised minimum wages, Health Care "Reform", trying to back door Cap and Tax through the EPA, etc.

All of the above actions would tend to lengthen and deepen the recession, and, guess what? We were promised that if they passed the almost trillion dollar stimulus plan, that unemployment could be held below 8%. We are lucky in the months it is below 10%.

You appear to be wanting to blame this recession on Bush (43), but are ignoring that pretty much everything that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have done in the last year and a half has had the expected result of making the recession far worse.

let's stop right there ok. We looked for them and they weren't there. He didn't have them.

When he did, historically had them and used them, we supplied them to him.

I am NOT blaming us but he didn't have them when we went to war against him citing that as a reason for doing so.

Ok, let's do this slowly.

First, WMD were found. Just not new ones. Some of his old stuff from before Desert Storm had not been destroyed. Most of it was where we expected to find it. But not all.

Second. We didn't give him any significant quantities of WMD, and pretty much everyone else provided the manufacturing capabilities, including France, Germany, and Russia. Somehow a small contribution has turned into supplying him with all his WMD by the liberal echo chamber.

Third, many of his generals didn't know that he didn't have the WMD. His scam was that successful. He had everyone faked out. Not just GW Bush, but also the Brits, the Russians, the French, and most importantly, the Iranians (which is apparently why he was running the scam in the first place).

And finally, WMD was one of better than a dozen reasons for war. The most important was his continued violation of the cease fire and UN resolutions, and that he had bought off the French and Russians through the Oil for Food program. The French had told us that they would not vote for sanctions the next time they came to the Security Counsel (and we found out how much they had been bribed when we got into Saddam's records after Baghdad fell).

Over the years I've helped to financially support and build hundreds of families "hawking junk". Those families have done likewise to thousands of others. I don't believe the same thing would be possible starting today and it's almost entirely due to the errors of government regulation.

And Wall Street junk investment firms would argue the same thing.

The difference is merely in velocity. If you're "building" families off of junk with little real value, at least the market has time to get you to adjust before the entire economy comes crashing down with you. The housing bubble that Wall Street built, not so much.

The idea, that leaving Wall Street alone to do the same thing over and over again would be better than a simple regulation here or there, does indeed go beyond optimism and into delusion. For years we got along fine without repealing Glass Steagall and to protest that any regulation of derivatives trading or the size of these companies would be worse than better just shows how little you understand about the current mess.

Growth, after all, is the mantra of the cancer cell.

There are smart ways to grow and reckless ways to grow. I pity anyone so obsessed with dollar signs that they cannot comprehend, let alone see, the difference between growth on paper and actual value.